Loading...
CC 2005 03 14 CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MARCH 14, 2005 Mayor Furlong called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Furlong, Councilman Lundquist, Councilman Peterson and Councilwoman Tjornhom COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: Councilman Labatt STAFF PRESENT: Todd Gerhardt, Justin Miller, Roger Knutson, Paul Oehme, and Kate Aanenson PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS: Tom Kelly Park and Recreation Commission Josh Miller 16190 Hayes Lane, Carver Nate Cook 260 Hidden Lane Mandy Cutler 1193 Wildwood Court Steph Peterson 736 Ashley Drive Cory Poppitz 529 Westwood Lane David Jansen Chanhassen Villager PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: INVITATION TO THE EASTER EGG CANDY HUNT. Mayor Furlong: Thank you and welcome to everybody that’s joined us here this evening and for those watching at home as well, we’re glad you joined us. I would ask at this time if there are any additions or modifications to the agenda. If there are none then we’ll proceed with the agenda as published. Hearing none. Start with a couple of public announcements. The first is our Easter Egg Candy Hunt. Annually the City of Chanhassen, in cooperation with our local businesses sponsors a series of special events. In the spring the event is the Easter Egg Candy th Hunt which will be held on Saturday, March 26. It’s a week from this coming Saturday. I’d like to invite all the residents and their family and friends to come out to the Chanhassen Rec Center. The event starts at 9:00. They’ll have the Splatter Sisters again this year. Always a fun event for the children. There will be an Easter egg candy hunt and a lot of fun. Each year the attendance seems to grow so please come out. It’s a lot of fun for all the children. Good family event. Children ages 4 to 12 are invited to participate in a coloring contest and it’s always a fun time. There will be a lot of prizes. The event is free and no pre-registration is required so look forward to seeing many of you there. Also would like to make sure everybody’s aware that this th coming Sunday, March 20 from 8:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. the Lion’s, Chanhassen’s Lions and the Chanhassen Fire Department are hosting their annual pancake breakfast. This is also a fun event. It’s good to bring the children out. They get to see some of the equipment in our fire department. The Lion’s do a great job. It’s always a fun time so if people are looking for a Sunday brunch th this coming Sunday on the 20, 8:00 to 1:00 at the fire station, right here on Laredo. City Council Meeting – March 14, 2005 CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Peterson seconded to approve the following consent agenda items pursuant to the City Manager’s recommendations: a. Receive Commission Minutes: -Planning Commission Summary & Verbatim Minutes dated February 15, 2005 Resolution#2005-22: b. Call Public Hearing for TH 101 Gap Municipal Consent, Project 04-06. Resolution#2005-23: c. Call Public Hearing for TH 212/101 Gap Bonding Project Items, Project 03-09-3. d. Pinehurst Development, 6620 & 6640 Galpin Boulevard: 1) Final Plat Approval. 2) Approve Construction Plans & Specifications and Development Contract. Resolution#2005-24: e. Approve Resolution for Designating and Revoking Municipal State Aid Routes. Resolution#2005-25: f. Approve Quotes for SCADA Electrical Improvements, PW307D. Resolution#2005-26: g. Authorize Change Order for New Test Well #10, Project 04-08A. h. Authorize Inspection Contract for TH 212. Resolution#2005-27: i. Authorize Purchase of 2005 Trucks, PW016KKK. j. Approval of Temporary On-Sale Liquor License, Rotary Tulip Gala at the Arboretum, April 30. k. Approval of 2005 Fourth of July Fireworks Contract. l. Approval of 2005 Reach for Resources Adaptive Recreation Contract. m. Approve City Code Amendment to Chapter 20-814 to Permit Electric Substations as a Conditional Use in IOP Districts. n. Accept Quote for 2005 Boulevard Tree Planting Program. o. Accept $2,000 Donation from General Mills for Safety Camp. Resolution#2005-28: p. Approval of Temporary Charitable Gambling Permit, St. Hubert’s Catholic Community. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. 2 City Council Meeting – March 14, 2005 VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: None. PRELIMINARY PLAT REVIEW FOR CRESTVIEW, A FIVE LOT SUBDIVISION WITH VARIANCES (A REPLAT OF THE SHIVLEY ADDITION); LOCATED AT THE END OF CRESTVIEW DRIVE, LECY BROS. HOMES, PLANNING CASE 05-02. Public Present: Name Address Chris Moehrl 7599 Anagram Drive, Eden Prairie Nathan Franzen 1851 Lake Drive West Peter Knaeble Golden Valley Andrew Johnsrud Minnetrista Alan Nikolai 6282 Cartway Lane Doris Nikolai 6570 Galpin Boulevard Mike Byrd 935 East Wayzata Boulevard Kate Aanenson: Thank you. This item appeared before the Planning Commission back in th January 4. This subdivision was directly tied to the final plat you just gave on the Pinehurst subdivision immediately to the south, this subject here. Obviously the street extension that you approved on the previous subdivision affects this subdivision, so while we’re working through those issues, the subdivision, final plat, or preliminary plat was held up. There was some request for variances specifically because Crestview doesn’t meet current city standards. Their right-of- way was given a 50 foot, the street was given a 50 foot right-of-way. The pavement width will match the standards that we have but just the right-of-way. With that they were asking for some setbacks from the street. The staff did not support those with the redraw based on the fact there was an additional street preservation. Kind of the two issues that the staff spent a lot of time was on access between Pinehurst, the subdivision to the south and this one was access to the West Junior High School. And as it turns out, both subdivisions are providing access. This subdivision, let me just, this is the applicant’s design. We did want a sidewalk to walk to the junior high so the Pinehurst has provided a sidewalk. That sidewalk did move to the east side as opposed to the west side as you get up there, and you’ll have to cross. If you could follow along maybe on page 8 where we go through the recommendations of approval. So number 1, the sidewalk along the south side of Crestview and the trail, this is the sidewalk we’re talking about right here. So you’d come up this side. Again, the Pinehurst subdivision has been designed to accommodate that. The sidewalk will come up and then cross, so you have the south side here. So our recommendation on that, number one is that with the radius of the curve, the sidewalk doesn’t stay and so they need to provide additional easement for that radius. Then the other issue was this trail through here. It needs to be 20 foot wide with a minimum, it does say 10 in there but minimum of 8 foot, and that’s because we plow those trails. That’s a permanent access to get to the school and those would be maintained. That trail portion would be maintained by the city, whereas the sidewalk is maintained by the homeowners in front of, and so again clarification of those. The responsibility for the development of all those would be the responsibility of the 3 City Council Meeting – March 14, 2005 developer, not the city. Included with the development proposal itself. So that’s kind of 1, 2, and 3 clarification. If you have any questions on that. Mayor Furlong: Questions right now on those? And I do Kate. Clarification. Does the condition 2, that speaks to the trail easement between Lot 2 and 3. Am I understanding that correctly? Kate Aanenson: That’s correct. That’s this one here, and it’s not shown right on the plan. It needs to be wider. A 20 foot. Mayor Furlong: So is staff recommending that we modify condition 2 to make it says 20 feet? Kate Aanenson: That would be my recommendation. 20 foot, and then clarify. Mayor Furlong: To indicate a 20 foot trail easement. Kate Aanenson: They only wanted to put, they’re requesting a 5 foot and again, because we have to plow it, minimum that we’d recommend would be 8. Typically we like to see between 8 and 10, but a minimum of 8 and that’s for us to maintain that. Mayor Furlong: But is staff proposing that the developer install the trail as well? Kate Aanenson: That’s correct. Mayor Furlong: Is that somewhere else on here? Kate Aanenson: No, I think that maybe should be clarified. Mayor Furlong: To dedicate a trail easement and install a trail? Kate Aanenson: Correct. Dedicate and install. Mayor Furlong: So the easement’s 20 feet and the trail is 8? Did you say. Or to standard. To city standards. Kate Aanenson: That’s correct. We had recommended 10. We were just talking, I did talk to the Park and Rec Director and to the City Engineer just to clarify that we would allow it to go down to 8. We’d like to see 10 but we’ll compromise on that. And I just wanted to also kind of go through, we did agree to the 50 foot there. One of the issues they had with the trail connection was how it would impact similar their concern with the sidewalk in front of the houses, how it would impact these lots. So the sidewalk got moved across and we did agree to let this 50 foot, whereas the subdivision lots is staying with 60. Same pavement width. In order to get the additional width, because they have to push those lots around to get the trail easement, so there was some give on the city’s part to make that happen. And since this time with the additional storm water went through that site too, so there’s two easements running through there that kind of pushes that a little bit so we did agree to that 50. So with that, 5 lots. We are 4 City Council Meeting – March 14, 2005 recommending approval with the conditions in the staff report and I’d be happy to answer any other questions. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any questions for staff? Councilman Lundquist: Kate, the variances that you’re recommending denial of. Kate Aanenson: Correct. Those were for front yard variances. We recommended they can fit within. We didn’t believe there was any additional tree. We believe giving the 50 foot right-of- way, where here it may not be good, there wasn’t any additional tree savings. There is the width to do it. So we didn’t support those. Councilman Lundquist: Okay. Mayor Furlong: But if there was that 5 foot variance on the setback, that would be against the 50 foot wide right-of-way rather than the normal setback? Kate Aanenson: Correct, because we already gave them that. Correct, it’d be like a double. Because you can go closer because the street’s narrower. So we accomplished it in a different way. You know we felt we gave them that. And there wasn’t additional tree savings on the back. Mayor Furlong: Thanks. Other questions? Councilwoman Tjornhom: Don’t think so. Mayor Furlong: Okay. We’re comfortable, and maybe this is a question for Mr. Oehme with regard to the narrower right-of-way. Any drawback from city standpoint from maintenance or any issues there? It’s consistent with the rest of Crestview I understand but are there any drawbacks with us doing that? Paul Oehme: Yeah, we try to maintain 60, at least at a minimum 60 foot right-of-way. In this particular location we only have a few houses associated with this development. The impacts that we see in terms of narrowing the right-of-way down by 10 feet are the underground utilities. Getting access to them, and just boulevard preservation but there really aren’t that many utilities out here. To service this area. We don’t have any trunk water mains. We don’t have any trunk storm sewer systems out here so we’re comfortable with the 50 feet in this area. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright. Thank you. Any other questions for staff? If not, is the applicant here this evening? Is there anything you’d like to address to the council? Peter Knaeble: Yes Mr. Mayor, members of the City Council. My name’s Peter Knaeble. I’m here representing the developer of the property, Lecy Brothers Homes. Also here tonight is Andy Johnsrud from Lecy Brothers, in case you have any questions for him. Basically we’ve been again, like Kate said, working on this project since last September with the staff and it’s relative straight forward, especially now at this point, or this stage. The kind of the final items 5 City Council Meeting – March 14, 2005 that we’re concerned about and we concur with the staff report other than the issue on the 25 foot front setback, it’s our position that granting that variance from that front setback would save an additional 5 foot of trees in the rear of the house given an equal size house. Obviously we just move it up that 5 feet and save that 5 foot of any trees or any grading limit that would be in the rear of the property. So we’re still asking for that. We understand the staff’s position and we have read the staff report and kind of understand where they’re coming from. So obviously from our part it’s not a deal breaker if that doesn’t happen, but we’re still requesting that from the council. The other issue is, again the location of the sidewalk. We understand the location on the south side of the road. Just talking to Andy from Lecy Brothers, I think their position if they’d prefer it on the north side to get away from the 3 new homes and keep it along that longer frontage, but again if it’s the staff and council’s recommendation to put it per staff, I think Andy would concur that that’s okay with them too. So our basic issue is just again to ask for that 25 foot front setback again with that 50 foot it allows a total of 10 foot of additional encroachment from that house. Move it up that 10 feet so we would ask for that. Other than that we concur with the other recommendations in the staff report. Thank you. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any questions for the applicant as he sits down. That’s okay. Kate, any thoughts or comments? Follow up. Kate Aanenson: Yes. My only concern moving to the other side is, I’m not sure that Mr. Larkin was aware of that change and certainly would give him the opportunity to comment on that. That’s a pretty significant change, putting a sidewalk to the other side. Mayor Furlong: And he’s the property owner, the existing homeowner? Kate Aanenson: Correct. So that would be our concern there. As far as the 25 foot, I mean this has to come back for final plat. Our initial review is, it’s not going to save trees and if they can demonstrate that, we’d go ahead and look at that at time of final plat. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. This was addressed by the Planning Commission back in January. There have been some changes given the development to the south and such like that so if there is someone from the public that would like to make some comments to the council at this time I’d certainly invite them to come forward and address any issues. Council did have an opportunity to review the Planning Commission meeting minutes and so we don’t need a repeat of what was said there but if there’s new issues or something that’s changed that you’d like to make sure the council’s aware of, we certainly would be interested in listening to that so, if anybody would like to come forward, please do so now. State your name and address for public comment. Okay, seeing none, that’s fine. Why don’t we bring it back to council for discussion or any follow up questions. Councilman Peterson: Mr. Mayor, I think it is pretty straight forward and I think if staff can work with the developer to address the sidewalk issue and talk to Mr. Larkin, get his feedback on it, I think he would be a driving force in me making a decision but I think we can allocate that responsibility. Let staff deal with the position of the sidewalk. And the 25 foot setback, as Kate mentioned, I think let them deal with it. If they find that there is a compelling reason to do it, then I’m okay with that. If we have an opportunity to save trees without an aggressive 6 City Council Meeting – March 14, 2005 deterioration and a good plan, then we should seize that opportunity. Other than that I think it’s a good plan. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Other discussion? Councilwoman Tjornhom: I agree with Councilman Peterson. I could go either way with the 25 foot setback. If it saves trees, I think it’s a good thing. I guess I’m just happy with the bituminous, yeah. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Councilman Lundquist? Councilman Lundquist: I would concur with Councilman Peterson on the sidewalk as well. To talk to the existing property owner and come back for final. The setback, again put the burden on that on the developer. If they can demonstrate that, especially given the wanting to have an extra buffer between them and the middle school there, as all that activity in the park and things that I can certainly understand why they would want as much buffer and that as possible, so again I think those issues are out there but not that big of a deal to work through between now and final plat, so I’m happy with what I see now and a couple of minor things to look at. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. I would concur on the sidewalk. We need to get Mr. Larkin’s thoughts on that. He’s most directly affected by that. With regard to the setback I think, I’m coming at it at a little bit different view and that is, of the 5 lots here, there’s an existing home on one so we’re really dealing with 4 new. Of those 4, 3 of them are on the end of a cul-de-sac. The end of a wide turn around. And so you’ve got triangle shaped pieces and as you get closer to the street, the houses are going to purposely get very close to each other, and I think from a, you know where the houses are and how crowded they look to the street versus how far set back they are to…for safety but also just from a design standpoint, I think that’d be something in addition and we want to save trees in the back, but by moving them forward 5 feet, if a future property owner builds a deck or something like that in the back, those trees could be gone anyway. And so I’m concerned about the crowding of the houses at the street at that turn around. I’m not necessarily comfortable with that because we’re already dealing with a narrower right- of-way. The cul-de-sac, the pavement area in the cul-de-sac bituminous area with the curbs, that’s going to be a normal size cul-de-sac, correct? So we’re already. Kate Aanenson: Radius, yeah but we did talk about snow storage. I mean you’re right, when you push it forward on a cul-de-sac, the snow storage issue is… Mayor Furlong: Yeah, snow storage and I’m just thinking you’re trying to get you’ve got wedge shaped homes so the houses are coming up physically closer and the proximity of the houses, even with the setbacks I think they might be a jammed a little bit there so that’s my concern there on that setback. It’s not as bad on Lot 5. That might not be an issue being seen but I think I would be concerned about just the location of the homes on 2, 3 and 4 so at this time I’d want to gain some comfort there and so to me it’s more than just trying to save some trees on the back. It’s how the development’s going to look when homes go in. Councilwoman Tjornhom, sure. 7 City Council Meeting – March 14, 2005 Councilwoman Tjornhom: Are those homes then going to have enough room for decks and patios? Is there enough space back there if they are pushed back? Kate Aanenson: Yes. I mean there should be plenty of space. That’s a requirement of the box that they showed reasonable building plan. Mayor Furlong: And the lot sizes meet the ordinance in terms of dimensions and. Kate Aanenson: Yeah. There’s only one lot that’s 15 but they’re probably closer to an average of yeah, 24’s in here. Yeah. Mayor Furlong: You know and I guess as I’m talking about setbacks, and maybe this is a question for Kate. In the frontage, in the staff report there were a couple, I think it’s Lots 2 and 3 that show less than the 90. What is the requirement at a cul-de-sac? It’s at the setback right? Kate Aanenson: At the 30 foot setback, that’s correct. Mayor Furlong: 30 foot setback. And so do these have that width available? Kate Aanenson: Yes. Mayor Furlong: Okay. So you know, everything else being said, I don’t need to repeat that. I think it’s fairly straight forward. I think it’s a good development. I know I’ve got confidence in the builder in terms of building a good quality product. I’m just concerned about crowding, that 25 foot setback might create. Councilman Peterson: Are you comfortable empowering staff to make that decision based upon our comments or not? Mayor Furlong: Well I think you know as it comes back for final, let’s take a look what they come back with. But I think to me it’s more than just the trees in the back yard. It’s the overall development in terms of the location of the homes. So, any other thoughts or comments? Councilman Lundquist: So as a clarification, I think what we’re talking about is to move with staff’s recommendations on denial of variance and put the sidewalk on the south side and that pending examination or whatever, and then at final we would approve the variance then? Is that what we’re talking about, if we decided to. Kate Aanenson: You have to leave it open ended. Councilman Lundquist: Leave it open? Kate Aanenson: Yeah. It is going forward with variances. The sidewalk isn’t a variance issue. That’s just a design issue. The only variance that would be open ended would be whether or not we’re going to save additional trees. So we can get the attorney’s opinion but my 8 City Council Meeting – March 14, 2005 recommendation with variances, if it can be demonstrated that’s additional trees and not a negative impact. Roger Knutson: As I understand it you’d be approving the variances subject to them proving at time of final plat that they will save trees. Kate Aanenson: And not have a negative impact on. Roger Knutson: And not have a negative impact. Kate Aanenson: Right. Roger Knutson: On crowding or whatever. Kate Aanenson: Yeah. Mayor Furlong: Yeah, I mean I think the simplest thing would be not to provide the variance in the preliminary plat. If there’s a strong desire to do that, then I think we have to put some caveats on it. The simplest thing would just be to deny that 5 foot setback variance on the preliminary and then it’s clean. Because the sidewalk, like I said, is a design. If there’s a desire to go forward, then I think we have to put some caveats on there. Councilwoman Tjornhom: But Mr. Larkin would certainly be notified. Kate Aanenson: That’s what my concern was. He hasn’t been notified. Councilwoman Tjornhom: But I’m sure he wasn’t here because he thought it was on the other side of the street and so he didn’t think there was, yeah. Kate Aanenson: …that would be my concern. Roger Knutson: Mayor. Maybe a clean way to handle the variance, if you so choose, would be not to make a decision on the variance tonight. Have the applicant provide you in writing before he leaves here tonight a letter granting you extension to consider the variance until the time of final plat approval, and then bring back the variance with the final plat approval. Then you don’t have to worry about all the caveats and conditions. But we have to do something because of our time restrictions on acting on these. Mayor Furlong: That would be okay? Kate Aanenson: Yeah, so you’d just actually, if they give you the extra time, when it comes back for final plat, I’m assuming that’s, that gives a 60 day extension on the variances. Roger Knutson: Or until the final plat comes back. 9 City Council Meeting – March 14, 2005 Mayor Furlong: Alright. Is there other discussion? If not, is there a motion? Does somebody want to. Councilman Peterson: I would move that. Mayor Furlong: You would move that. There are a couple of clarifications I think in our report in terms of some of the conditions so I would suggest we try to struggle through what’s. Councilman Lundquist: I’ll take a stab. Mayor Furlong: And let’s listen if you would Mr. Knutson and make sure we get it right. Councilman Lundquist: I would move that the City Council approve Planning Case 05-02 for a 5 lot subdivision, 5 lot subdivision subject to conditions 1 through, how many was there? I forget exactly. 27 with the deletion of 25. Amended condition number 2. That the developer shall dedicate a 20 foot trail easement and construct an 8 foot wide trail. And that the applicant grant an extension for decision on the variance until final plat returns for approval. Based on the findings of fact attached to this report. Mayor Furlong: Can we require the applicant to grant an extension in our motion? Roger Knutson: No you can’t but he just indicated he would. And the findings of fact. Councilman Lundquist: Go along with the variance? Roger Knutson: Yeah. You don’t want to act on the findings of fact until. Councilman Lundquist: Such time as the variance. Roger Knutson: Right, because they are for approval of the variance and you don’t know whether you are going to… Councilman Lundquist: …so rescind the findings of fact. Mayor Furlong: And you didn’t include in your motion, just for clarification here before a second, did you want to include the statement that the 5 lot subdivision, plans prepared by Terra Engineering with those dates? Councilman Lundquist: Yes, as stated in the staff report. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Thank you. Is there a second? Councilwoman Tjornhom: Second. Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any discussion of the proposed amendments on it? 10 City Council Meeting – March 14, 2005 Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded that the City Council approves Planning Case 05-02 for a five lot subdivision, plans prepared by Terra Engineering, Inc., dated 11/22/04, revised 12/7/04, 2/21/05, and 2/28/05, and subject to the following conditions: 1.The developer shall include a sidewalk along the south side of the extension of Crestview Drive and a trail from the end of the cul-de-sac between Lots 2 and 3to the school property located west of the site. The developer shall provide an easement for the sidewalk within Lots 3 and 4. 2.The developer shall dedicate a 20 foot trail easement and construct an 8 foot wide trail from , Crestview Drive to the west property line between Lots 2 and 3Block 1 to accommodate the pedestrian access to the Middle School site. 3.A final grading plan and soils report must be submitted to the Inspections Division before building permits will be issued. 4.Separate water and sewer services must be provided for each lot. 5.No burning permits will be issued for trees to be removed. Trees and shrubs must either be removed from site or chipped. 6.A 10-foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e., street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, Xcel Energy, Qwest, cable TV and transformer boxes. This is to ensure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance #9-1. 7.Fire apparatus access roads and water supply for fire protection is required to be installed. Such protection shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during the time of construction except when approved alternate methods of protection are provided. Temporary street signs shall be installed on each street intersection when construction of the new roadway allows passage by vehicles. Pursuant to 2002 Minnesota Fire Code Section 501.4. 8.A minimum of two overstory deciduous trees shall be required in the front yard of each lot. 9.The developer shall be responsible for installing all landscape materials proposed in rear and side yard areas. 10.Tree preservation fence shall be installed at the edge of the grading limits prior to any construction. 11.All trees shown as preserved and outside of the grading limits as shown on plans dated 11/22/04 shall be saved. Any trees removed in excess of proposed tree preservation plans will be replaced at a ratio of 2:1 diameter inches. 11 City Council Meeting – March 14, 2005 12.Erosion control blanket shall be installed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3:1. All exposed soil areas shall have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover year round, according to the following table of slopes and time frames: Time (maximum time an area can remain unvegetated Type of Slope when area is not actively being worked) Steeper than 3:1 7 Days 10:1 to 3:1 14 Days Flatter than 10:1 21 Days These areas include constructed storm water management pond side slopes, any exposed soil areas with a positive slope to a storm water conveyance system, such as a curb and gutter system, storm sewer inlet temporary or permanent drainage ditch or other man made systems that discharge to a surface water. 13.Daily scraping and sweeping of public streets shall be completed anytime construction site soil, mud, silt or rock is tracked or washed onto paved surface or street that would allow tracked materials or residuals of that material to enter the storm water conveyance system. 14.Construction site access points shall be minimized to controlled access points with rock entrance and exit pads installed and maintained throughout construction. 15.Based on the proposed developed area of 3.36 acres, the estimated total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat recording is $12,761. 16.The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g., Riley-Purgatory-Bluff-Creek Watershed District, Metropolitan Council Environmental Services, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (NPDES Phase II Construction Permit), Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (for dewatering), and Minnesota Department of Health) and comply with their conditions of approval. 17.The storm sewer must be designed for a 10-year, 24-hour storm event. Submit storm sewer sizing calcs and drainage map for staff review and approval at time of final plat. 18.On the grading plan: a.Add a note to remove the existing driveway access of Lot 1. b.Show the benchmark used for the site survey. c.Add a legend. 19.If importing or exporting material for development of the site is necessary, the applicant will be required to supply the City with a detailed haul route and traffic control plan. 20.The sanitary sewer and water hookup charges will be applicable for each of the new lots. The 2005 trunk hookup charge is $1,458 for sanitary sewer and $2,955 for watermain. Sanitary sewer and watermain hookup fees may be specially assessed against the parcel at the time of 12 City Council Meeting – March 14, 2005 building permit issuance. All of these charges are based on the number of SAC units assigned by the Met Council. 21.Public utility improvements are required to be constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed construction plans and specifications must be submitted at time of final plat for review. The applicant is also required to enter into a development contract with the City and supply the necessary financial security in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee installation of the improvements and the conditions of final plat approval. 22.In conjunction with the final plat approval, the developer shall vacate the existing Crestview Drive right-of-way dedicated as part of the Shively Addition. 23.Full park fees shall be collected at the rate in force at the time of final plat.” 24. The applicant will work with staff to shift the cul-de-sac to the east. 25. Add the following City Detail Plates: 1002, 1004, 1005, 1006, 2001, 2002, 2101, 2109, 2110, 2201, 3101, 3102, 5200, 5203, 5214, 5215, 5300, 5301, and 5302A. 26. The applicant will grant an extension for decision on the variance until final plat returns for approval. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: None. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: Todd Gerhardt: You want to talk about our meeting with Representative Hoppe and Senator Ortman on the park and ride facility? Mayor Furlong: Yes, why don’t we bring that up under administrative presentations or whatever. It doesn’t matter. You and I were there. Todd Gerhardt: Yep. We met both Senators and Representatives and individuals from Met Council 2 weeks ago Wednesday. The meeting went fairly well. No decisions were made. Staff is monitoring how Met Council has prioritized projects. Right now there’s 5 projects that are prioritized ahead of our’s. We are number 6. If any one of the 5 projects that are ahead of us should fall out, could not be completed by those individual cities or transit facilities, we would then probably put a mad rush on the TAP board who prioritized those projects to move our’s up into that 5 category. Councilman Peterson: The project we’re talking about is the park and ride, the parking facility, parking ramp over by the Dinner Theater. 13 City Council Meeting – March 14, 2005 Councilman Lundquist: Phase II or III of Kraus Anderson. Councilman Peterson: The developer wants to move it up so. Todd Gerhardt: Southwest Metro made an application, I think it was almost at year and a half ago and the TAP board is an advisory board of Met Council. They go through an extensive review of all the applications of property, you know over a dozen applications and we played out into a sixth place. They funded 5 of those and there’s some possibilities of some of those not happening. We believe that if one of those doesn’t happen, since we were in the sixth position, we should move up based on their priorities. They will also, Met Council’s also taking applications for what is the funding cycle for 2009 and 10. This is federal money. You can go out that far. They made a commitment to fund that money and so we’ll probably make another application for that program also. It’s the same process that will be used for the pedestrian underpass on 41 next to Yoberry so, different category of prioritizing though for that money. So I’d say it was a good/bad meeting. Mayor Furlong: Well they didn’t write us a check. Todd Gerhardt: No, and they didn’t agree to fund it but we’re still in the running and you know it’s something that Len is watching closely and we believe they should make an allocation from the federal government here probably April-May timeframe. And then that gives those individual projects a year and a half to commit to funding. Mayor Furlong: I think one thing that’s important, and why it’s good to share this here. I’ve had a couple residents ask me about whether or not, now that the park and ride has been moved back by, behind all the buildings and away, if there’s a desire to close that when the new park and ride opens up down at Lyman and 101, and the clear answer is no. That’s not the intention. In fact this, you know I commend Southwest Metro Transit Commission and Len Simich for trying to push this forward because this is an important part. It shows their commitment, desire to expand the park and ride facility… Councilman Peterson is the chair of that commission and it’s good to see that commitment to expand the services that we can offer here in our downtown area. Councilman Peterson: It’s important to note we’re doing that because riders are using it. I mean we’re up 20% plus over the previous year and our expectation is, is that it’s going to grow by that amount pretty much for the ensuing near term, which is wonderful. So taking cars off the roads. Todd Gerhardt: And this facility, they have a lease for 120 spaces and they’ve been exceeding that number for several years now and as the redevelopment of that area continues, there’s just going to be a bigger demand for it. We have a nice, quaint downtown and it’s something people want to come to to park. Get their groceries after they get back from work. It’s just real convenient. So we see that benefit. Len sees that benefit in including that park and ride in our downtown. We also met with Southwest Transit representatives today. We’re going to need to modify our joint powers agreement. Occasionally Southwest Metro will review their joint powers agreement and make amendments to it. I’ll have a representative probably attend one of our April-May work sessions to bring you up to date on the suggested modifications to that joint powers. Some of the key areas is talking about breaking up the assets and the liabilities if for some reason Southwest Metro should 14 City Council Meeting – March 14, 2005 dissolve operations. We have 3 city managers that met today to discuss how that might occur and give them a recommendation to take back to their commission. That’s all I have. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Any questions for Mr. Gerhardt? Okay, no? CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION. None. Mayor Furlong: Any discussion on the correspondence packet? If not, the Economic Development Authority will be meeting immediately following this meeting, and we do have a couple items on our work session still that we’ll be completing as well, but if there’s nothing else to come before the council this evening, it’s 7:35. Is there a motion to adjourn? Councilwoman Tjornhom moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The City Council meeting was adjourned at 7:35 p.m. Submitted by Todd Gerhardt City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim 15